The amount of magical thinking that goes into this statement is amazing:

“The bicyclist then cut in front of the Bangladeshi immigrant’s cab before ending up on the hood of the vehicle, causing Himon to lose control and jump the curb”

Yeah, right. He just somehow magically “ended up” on the hood. Not that he was struck by the car being driven by Himon or anything. And also, this somehow magically caused the car to jump the curb.

S

“To charge Mr. Himon, prosecutors would have had to show that he intended to crash into Mr. Olivo, Mr. Marchese said. But they told Mr. Marchese that they did not feel they had sufficient evidence of such malice, he said.”

Can an attorney explain how this is true? I understand that it may be hard to get a jury to convict a driver for his actions, since the public may feel sympathy based on their own driving habits, but this claim seems to defy belief. Isn’t this why the legal system has such charges as criminal negligence or, in the case of a death, involuntary manslaughter?

Disregard the cabbie’s own statements to the press about his road rage. What does intent have to do with anything other than the severity of the charge?

Ari_FS

Isn’t the point of Boro Taxis that they can CRUISE to pick up street hails? Why do they need stands? Are there yellow taxi stands in Manhattan?

For some super high volume locations (subway stops, major attractions, etc.) I suppose it could be useful.

SteveVaccaro

Here are the charges I think the DA had a reasonable chance of winning a conviction on, third Degree Assault and Second Degree Reckless Endangerment. Neither require any showing of “intention”:

§ 120.00 Assault in the third degree.
A person is guilty of assault in the third degree when…With criminal negligence, he causes physical injury to another
person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument.
Assault in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor.

§ 120.20 Reckless endangerment in the second degree.
A person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the second degree when
he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of
serious physical injury to another person.
Reckless endangerment in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

§ 15.05 Culpability; definitions of culpable mental states.
The following definitions are applicable to this chapter…
1. “Intentionally.” A person acts intentionally with respect to a
result or to conduct described by a statute defining an offense when his
conscious objective is to cause such result or to engage in such
conduct.
2. “Knowingly.” A person acts knowingly with respect to conduct or to
a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is
aware that his conduct is of such nature or that such circumstance
exists.
3. “Recklessly.” A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or
to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is
aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk
that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk
must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a
gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person
would observe in the situation. A person who creates such a risk but is
unaware thereof solely by reason of voluntary intoxication also acts
recklessly with respect thereto.
4. “Criminal negligence.” A person acts with criminal negligence with
respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining
an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable
risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The
risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it
constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a
reasonable person would observe in the situation.

Because MADD isn’t about victim’s rights; they see alcohol as the evil, not cars. It’s basically the temperance movement transplanted forward a few decades.

waldoco1

Completely agree with you both.

Bronxite

What I wrote in the Dnainfo comment box regarding bioswales versus parking spaces:

“The advantages of a network of bioswales far outweigh the complaints of a few auto-centric NIMBYs. Their mosquito complaint holds no factual weight, it’s all about them. In this city it’s about us, and working to solve problems that effect NYC as a whole such as excess water runoff and the resulting negative effects.

Worried about parking spaces? Go pay for a lot. This is NYC. Why should a city where most people do not own a car subsidize your luxury at the expense of the environment and fiscal concerns?”

Bronxite

Also, was watching the Cycle just now on MSNBC when Urban Planner Jeff Speck was granted an opportunity to speak on behalf liveable streets. He presented his case clearly and was received well by the network host.

He focused on the Millennial desire to relocate into walkable urban cities (driving economic growth); building cities with walkability, bicycling and mass transit in mind (prioritized); a necessary reduction on parking; and the need for congestion pricing.

Stay away from my bike. It can control your mind and cause you to do things you never would have done on your own.

KillMoto

Jeff Speck is one of my heroes. Walkable City is an amazing, highly accessible book.

WoodyinNYC

Port Authority of course. We’d probably see more of them except — parking!

WoodyinNYC

And the 8th Avenue side as well. Tho these “stands” have such intense demand, a taxi rarely has a moment to pause.

Back in the day, with many more stands (near but not in front of hotels, etc), the driver could get out to stretch his legs, maybe chat with another cabbie. Don’t see much of that now.

WoodyinNYC

Current owners could get an automatic right to a share of additional medallions. Say, expand the total number of medallions by 10% and each current medallion owner gets a certificate for 1/10th of a medallion. The only thing he can do is sell the certificate for cash money to someone who is buying 10 of these 1/10 certificates. With 10, he registers for a new medallion and presto, another taxi on the streets. At the end of the process, you get more medallions added to the pool, but each owner who had a medallion when the process begins gains something as well. That something determined by free market.

Of course, if you add too many medallions at one time you’d knock the bottom out of the market. But this process could allow increasing the pool by 10% a year for several years, accompanied by a gradual decline in medallion prices.